On Tuesday 02 September 2008 08:33:28 Jim Morris wrote:
>roguemoko at roguewrt.org wrote:
> > Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
> >> NeilBrown escreveu:
> >>> On Mon, September 1, 2008 6:59 pm, Yorick Moko wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Lorn Potter <lpotter at trolltech.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> They certainly are not in our copy of the calypso spec's that we got
> >>>>> directly from TI. If it is, I must be missing it, and haven't found
> >>>>> it.
> >
> > But couldn't both of those have been documented? And if they have not
> > been, might be classed as incompetent. They are after all just part of
> > the modem instruction set.
> >
> > To not release the entire lot is a bit lame.
>> Using an undocumented feature in a chip is very dangerous. Minor changes to
> the fab, even though the chip has the same number may change or remove that
> undocumented feature that the phones now rely on.
I don't know if it's so much as an undocumented feature as an undocumented
command. I think the response and a subsequent lookup provides enough relevant
info as to what the 'feature' is.
> If this is going to be adopted in builds, then someone at OM needs to get
> TI to officially support that feature so that it does not disappear later.
I tend to agree but I'd extend that to, OM should ensure that we are able to
utilise the hardware effectively. A complete list of so-called documented and
undocumented commands needs to be compiled or obtained by somebody, whether
they are for development or not. After all, what the hell are we doing here?
Sarton